Re: CRLF requirement

On 2 Jul 2014, at 12:18 pm, Glen Knowles <> wrote:

> On 20140702, at 8:01 AM, Martin Nilsson <> wrote:
> >Also, somehow the word Connection got munged to nnCoection. Never underestimate the expressive power of old-school C  Id wager that this is somehow the result of a typo where the backslash was omitted from \n in the source.
> Changing "Connection: close" to "nnCoection: close" is something I have seen some "zero copy" proxies do when they wanted to remove the connection header. The theory is you just load a 32 bit "Conn", rotate it 16 bits to "nnCo", put it back, and rely on the upstream server to ignore it as an unrecognized header.
> That said, it's also something that I haven't seen in a long time, 2009 sounds about right.

Is still very common, from what I see...

Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 02:33:07 UTC